The Final Step – A Minarchist Discussion With A Voluntaryist

Article by Ben Doolin on May 10, 2016

 

The Final Step

No one starts out as a Voluntaryist… The State makes sure of that by controlling the flow of information to children for 12+ years… and has historically had absolute control over the media as well.

While I think the idea that ‘Big Government is bad’ is fairly well accepted, even by those that promote it for self interest, few even consider the idea of ‘no government’.

Even though I was perfectly primed for real freedom, it took me many months to work through the issues I thought made that idea impossible.

Since accepting that real freedom is possible, making The State both evil and unnecessary, I’ve spent much of my time sharing that perspective with others.

What follows is an epic (but not unusual) exchange between myself and a minarchist that covers almost every objection I’ve ever come across. While there is great value in working one-on-one, dealing with objections as they arise, it seemed to me that many could benefit from this specific discussion.

It has been minimally edited for clarity, but the reality of the conversation remains; the repetition, the frustration, the irritation (on both sides) and the general difficulties presented by the English language.

 

The Final Step

From the Facebook Page ‘PoliceZero’:

Minarchist: There is a lawful difference between police And sheriff’s deputies. When a code needs to be enforced a sheriff deputy would call the police. Now adays the deputies are no different when you look at the capacity they act under. Due process is never followed while making arrests or searches. Arresting for obstructing governmental administration without a warrant violates liberty, violates their oath, violates due process.

Me: While the Sheriff has the capacity to be ‘less evil’ than ‘police’… legislation is logically invalid… so no ‘code enforcement’ is logically correct or moral. The only legitimate ‘law’ is the details of a violation of person or property where a victim (or their estate) brings a claim (i.e. no victim, no crime). The only logical recourse to seek from an offender is compensation for every aspect of an associated loss (value of an item, pain, suffering, medical costs, legal costs, costs for collection, etc.).

Minarchist: Sheriff And deputies should only be there reinforcing the people’s rights. Not enforing malium prohibitium law. If someone is being attacked the deputies have a duty to stop it and arrest . If it did not happen infront of them ,they need a warrant.

Me: Right… but that scenario makes ‘dealing with corruption’ nearly impossible. On the other hand… if protection was a free market commodity… each individual could hire & pay for what they need… and fire them if they are found to be corrupt (or if anyone provides higher quality at a lower cost).

Minarchist: I’m at work, but look into the constitutional sheriff. He’s voted in and can be voted out for misdemeanors. Or other offenses . The oath a sheriff takes is a contract with the people. If he or his deputies cause injury to the people’s right,liberty, property, they can be removed. But the problem is the people don’t know the process And frequently use attorneys. Attorneys are officers of the court. They have an obligation to the court over their client. Client is defined in American jurisprudence as a ward of the court. Only persons (corporate entities ) can be represented. Natural person may use counsel But defends his own rights.

Me: I do understand how it works… what I’m saying is that ‘how it works’… fails logically and morally.

Minarchist: Only because You look at the fake defacto system of today. The people have failed to educate themselves And enforce the oaths on the public servants so naturally like a dog they miss behave over and over with no correction from us and this is what we get a bad dog that doesn’t listen bites us And pisses in the house. The government doesn’t know better they think it’s ok because enough of us accept it.

Me: It goes beyond that. Voting, has no logical support in circumstances where you can’t opt out.

Minarchist: Opt out of what? The sheriff and deputies acting according to their oaths, would never bother you at all, unless you are causing injuries to the public (breach of peace ) or committed a felony. Don’t do harm and there is no worries . That’s different from saying don’t break the law and they won’t mess with you. Because like I said most laws they enforce are MALIUM prohibitium.

The Final Step

Me: Again, you assume I do not understand. It’s starting to get insulting. What you do not understand… is the foundation of the ‘perfect system’ you’re trying to explain (and that I completely understand) is that if implemented… I could not ‘opt out’. I would be forced to pay for a system that I do not want. That is theft. It fails logically and morally.

Minarchist: Where do you get this opt out thing. You are still looking at how it’s working today. I can’t help you if you don’t get that. I’m not talking about the English sheriff that came around collecting taxes. Today we are forced to pay in many different ways . That wasn’t the case when we formed the government. Unless you are against all government And want anarchy which never works,well only for the strongest . the government and police are way to big. But they are necessary . But without the people keeping them in check we end up getting what we have . And simply put if you really want to be free ,you can be even now. Don’t buy a cell phone there’s taxes on that bill goes towards cops. Don’t pay unlawful taxes. Don’t pay traffic ticket. Stand your ground .freedoms not free so when they come to collect fight for your rights. Or don’t and accept it. But exceptance is consent

Me: Opt out = No obligations, No benefits. Yes, ‘government’ is evil and unnecessary. You are correct that systems of social order are necessary… but you don’t need to give a monopoly to commit crime to some people… to protect person and property. As to your false conclusion that anarchy equates to chaos… and only the strong will survive… I wrote an article responding to that suggestion: [see article: ‘Some Perspective On Roaming Gangs]

Minarchist: What system do we know of that is true anarchy? Again the system in place now is defacto. If we the people took responsibility And held the government to the constitution and it’s principles it would not be a monopoly. And yes without a system in place that the people can use when their rights are violated by another, Only the strong would survive. A system of social order is a government. If we had anarchy I could walk up to you and claim your car is mine, if you are stronger the car stays yours if not it’s mine and you are probably dead. Unless you have a system in place that punishes injuries to others you have no recourse. The system now is corrupt has been for over 100 years. We the people failed. And this is what we got for failing to hold them accountable.

Me: First, when I answer your question (the article) proving your point incorrect… it’s really bad form to not read the article and to continue to make claims that have already been proven false. As for an example of anarchy… here’s one of the best. It’s ‘clan insurance’ (which can be improved upon due to modern technology) but the basic idea is that if you screw up, your clam pays. There is great pressure to conform in that scenario… and if you refuse… you could be kicked out of your clan for ‘being too expensive’… which could make survival impossible [link provided to the YouTube video ‘Ireland 2000 Years of Anarchy’]

The Final Step

Me: While a free market would no doubt have hundreds or thousands of providers for solutions to the problem of social order, my personal preference would be something like the DRO model:

The ‘DRO Model’ (Dispute Resolution Organization) which is a business model that provides insurance, private protection and dispute resolution services, in the free market, competing against similar or alternative providers.

Insurance could cover everything that is covered today… plus be a ‘guarantee’ to others that you will not violate person or property. So, presenting valid insurance would mean you’re ‘safe’ to deal with.

The DRO could provide protection services… on a contract basis depending on what you needed… from nothing or 911 emergency type response… to body guards or more.

They would provide insurance against any loss you suffered… and if you have had person or property violated… and they paid you… they have been damaged as a result of the violation of person or property which legitimizes their use of force to recover for associated losses from the offender.

Should you violate person or property (beyond something like an accident), your insurance provider would pay the loss… and for something like a theft, I’d expect there to be a 100% deductible (you repay the insurer for the entire loss) and I would expect you to have a serious chance of increased rates or being dropped (and if you couldn’t get any coverage, life might be difficult or impossible).

Should you have a dispute, your DRO would represent you in making a claim. Should your claim not be clear… and the DRO covering the other person disputed the claim… a third party DRO could be sought to provide a binding decision.

So, this business model can solve just about any problem one can come up with (I haven’t seen an ‘unresolvable problem’ in the many years I’ve been considering these ideas).

Me: >>”And this is what we got for failing to hold them accountable.”

When you give a small group of people ‘the right’ to make the rules and enforce them with violence (a crime on its face) there is no way to stop them. Never in human history has a government been shrunk (other than by its own collapse) and kept small. That is the opposite of what government is… by definition.

Minarchist: So you are saying it’s not anarchy But in reality a form of government. Anarchy is no system whatsoever. No agreements between people. When a group of people unite together and agree to certain rules it’s a government. What you are talking about is a government. Much like when we founded this government we acted on natural law God’s law. Everyone had their right to life liberty And property. You could live your life how you deemed fit. You could contract or not contract. You were not forced to act of you did not wish to. The system now is not a good basis to form an opinion on what sucks and what doesnt.

Me: So, yes… definitions matter. Anarchy literally translates to ‘no rulers’. What I’ve been describing is a system where no one has any more right to do anything… than anyone else does. Government is the group of individuals that claim the right to commit crime (to violate person and property) in a geographic region. So, no… they are not at all similar. There is actual defense of person and property (not allowed today) which means real security and maximum freedom.

The Final Step

Minarchist: Wow . Until your last two comments I thought you were intelligent. Go back check the founding principles. And I’m assuming you didn’t read any of the book I posted yet poke fun at me for not reading your posting. I feel you don’t understand what a true anarchy is. You keep talking about programs and insurance . None would be in an anarchist society. Anarchy is structure less. No rules. No system. You start putting in place systems to run things and keep order , without rules to keep them from forming a monopoly And you will end up with a dictator. On a different note, you put systems or programs in place to keep order you now have a government And it’s no longer an anarchy. The constitutional republic was a free market. The people did not stay On top of the government and the government usurped power not granted to it. It is defacto. It’s allowed companies to become monopolies and we didn’t stand up and stop it when they did it . Sorry you clearly Don’t know the anarchist concept. Who keeps another from doing you harm? You ,right? If there’s no set rules to take recourse in a court or elsewhere, how can it ever be fair. You may think my punishment should be death but all I did was swear at you. What basis is there to form a foundation in society. There is none with anarchy. I have to end this here. I can’t help stupid people. Good luck.

Me: My intelligence or lack thereof… is irrelevant. What I say is true or it’s false.

Ad Hominem is also a logical fallacy.

I can prove just about everything I’m talking about (there is some opinion in there).

As for the founding principles and your book… all one needs to know is those are logically false. While I know a considerable amount more than that… when an argument starts off with ‘because 2+2=5’ any conclusion based on that will be false.

>>”true anarchy”

Logical fallacy (Google ‘no true Scotsman’) aka ‘moving the goal post’.

Additionally I’m good with which ever definitions you want to use.

So, even though you completely understand the word I’m using because I’ve given you the definition I’m using… if you’re still hung up on the word… we can switch to Voluntary Society. It actually is a more accurate description anyway… for the implication of systems of social order… as opposed to simply ‘no rulers’.

>>” And you will end up with a dictator.”

A conclusion with no logical support… and fails logically.

A voluntary society is only possible after the right to person and property has been agreed to by the majority. After that happens… a potential dictator would not step into a ‘power vacuum’ in a scenario where ‘The People’ think they need to be ruled… he would literally have to murder more than half of all of the people. That simply would not be possible.

>> I can’t help stupid people.

If all you have is ad hom… it’ll explain why you… are not capable of helping yourself.

The Final Step

Minarchist: Yeah you would have to explain more why you think the founding principles are not logical. We had a majority of the population here agree on life liberty And property, being the most sacred of rights…. And look at us now. The system You speak of is not true anarchy, Everyone gives up certain freedoms in order to live together. You then need to protect that way of life from evil in the world. We were infiltrated by progressive Marxist. They move slow and little by little convinced the people we need this and that until we had nothing. And that’s with a constitution that was supposed to limit the government. And you are saying that without anything but the people and some programs ,which is essentially a government, But let’s say it’s not, let’s say all the people just live with the understanding of person and property, And you are saying it’s won’t amount to a dictator? In a perfect world without greed and evil minded people maybe. Not in reality

Me: Life, Liberty and Property… is what it was originally going to say… but since slaves were property and property can’t own property… they had to change it to the ‘pursuit of happiness’. Dumb. That points out though that it was not a ‘majority of the people’ that decided… it was a majority of white land owners that actually voted… meaning probably less than 1% of the people. They also gave themselves the right to tax (theft and logically false) and legislate (a violation or person and logically false). In order for some individuals to have ‘super human rights’… you have to explain in what way they are not ‘ordinary humans’. Voting is also not a logical answer to that question… since one cannot delegate a right that he does not have.

Minarchist: I think we are on the same page in the sense we both agree in individual liberty. And we both agree we don’t need a babysitter. But I think you are crazy thinking Everyone is good and able to respect other people’s rights without a system to solve issues . Because it may not include An executive branch, judicial, and legislative. .. there has to be something or it’s kill or be killed.

Me: Close, but backwards. Because some people will be evil… we cannot have a system that makes ‘being evil’… ‘ok’. When everyone has the same rights… everyone will be free to arrange for their own defense (self, coop group or hired). Hired protection services will form the foundation of a free society.

The Final Step

Minarchist: Not to get into race, but black people were given the U.S. citizen status so they had standing in law. Now we all carry that status. Federal citizens. Never really free with natural inherent rights but were given civil rights. I agree with some of what you are saying. Voting is part of a society , somehow even in the system You speak of would have to vote or have one person dictate, when it comes down to someone being greedy or stepping on someone’s toes. But a good part (of we the people kept it in place)of the Republic was even the majority could not vote to violate the individual rights. . Anarchy is basically a democracy without The head of government , if not a dictatorship, it would be mob rule. Convince enough people you are a witch and they all grab the pitch forks. A republic said no sorry you can not pitchfork him without due process. So I don’t know ,this government is corrupt, but this government doesn’t represent the Republic. It represents a socialist democracy. Where we hire police and elect sheriff’s to protect us And they end up telling us what to do. And you don’t think someone who becomes wealthy will hire security And more security And more, and then take out or threaten to take out any in his way? Like I said in a perfect world with no evil ,maybe. And again The system now in place is not the constitutional republic . The system now ,rewards evil and punishes good. But it’s not the founding system. You are basically saying everyone can have their own army. What stops the guy with his own small army from coming to me and trampling on my rights because I chose to defend myself and not pay for protection, or pay for insurance for my rights.

The Final Step

Me: >>”Voting is part of society”

That fact that ‘something is’… doesn’t mean it’s moral. There is NO PROBLEM with people joining together, agreeing up front to a democratic method of dispute resolution and ‘rule setting’.

Home owners associations are a great example of that. People getting together to select a ‘leader’ and assigning that leader rights that they individually have.

What would NOT be ok… is for your home owner’s association to ‘annex’ the next neighborhood over… and tell them that force will be used against them if they don’t pay the dues or follow ‘your rules’.

>>even in the system You speak of would have to vote or have one person dictate

Sort of. Even when law is only about the violation of person and property… subjectivity will come into play. Who is the ‘real owner’, what constitutes reasonable compensation for a loss, etc.

So, a judge or panel would be necessary. However, the lack of a monopoly means that if they ever get a decision wrong… they’re putting their entire business at risk. It’s not a scenario where The System is imposed on anyone, except maybe to hold a violator accountable for losses created… which is a legitimate action for the individual as well.

>>”even the majority could not vote to violate the individual rights”

I don’t think even the founders intended to be bound by paper… and that’s never been the case. The Bill of rights was a concession to the Anti-Federalists to get them to concede. It’s why it’s a list of amendments… not part of the original Constitution.

>>”it would be mob rule”

Anarchy can be chaos… however what I’m talking about is not the accidental condition after the fall of The State and before the next government is formed. What I’m talking about is a conscious decision to eliminate rule by violence… with respect for person and property including systems of protection and dispute resolution. So no, what I’m talking about is not mob rule. What we have today… pretty much is.

>>”you don’t think someone who becomes wealthy will hire security And more security”

The wealth disparity that exists today is only possible via government supported monopolies. A huge profit margin in a free market will draw in competitors that can be profitable at lower prices.

Additionally, if anyone found out that an individual was going to try to ‘take over the world’… no one would deal with him. Even staying alive might become problematic… or at least immensely expensive trying to find people willing to risk ostracization to help him.

The Final Step

Minarchist: What you are describing is the original intent of the founders. The constitutional republic is close to anarchy. But with certain measures in place to guard from usurpation of power. Like I said before we the people failed to keep it. We are responsible . Your first paragraph about voting , a group of people coming together in agreement is voting. If I say yes I agree and so do you ,that’s us voting.

Me: Yup, that’s why the right to ‘opt out’ was way at the top of this conversation. Just like the ‘annexed’ neighborhood. It would be fine if they all agreed to ‘join forces’ for some mutual benefit… but a crime if they were not able to ‘opt out’. As for the founders… the difference between what they did… giving some people ‘more rights’… and what I’m talking about (leaving everyone with the same rights) is the ultimate accountability you’re talking about. When you give some the right to make the rules, decide what they mean and use violence to enforce them… there is NO WAY to hold them to account. When everyone has the same rights… everyone can hold everyone they deal with to account. It is the ultimate accountability arrangement while also lowering cost, improving quality and providing for the greatest degree of security and freedom possible.

Minarchist: Actually The founders recognized individual rights more than any form of government. I don’t know what you mean when you say they gave more rights to some.? When they founded the government they declared that the people were the sovereign. Not a king or a group of men. By creating the government The government is under the people. The people elect representatives And give some of their sovereignty away to the representatives. But by no means did the people give more rights to the government then the people themselves had. Their basis was God created the people and gave them rights, the people created government and gave it certain powers. But life happened, people strayed from the founding principles, and evil took ahold. It happens in every form of government or non government. Unless the people stay sharp and don’t allow it

Me: That all sounds good… and it’s what we’re all taught. It’s just not true.

The Constitution gave ‘some’ the right to take the property of others and to make up random rules backed with a death threat.

Since no one has those rights… they are not rights that can be assigned to another outside of a contract.

While social contracts can be valid (like our home owner’s association example) they cannot be assumed or imposed. So, unless you contractually agreed to pay the dues and be bound by the rules… neither bind you to anything.

As for the ‘nobility’ of the founding fathers… a few thoughts:

They were the first politicians.

Politicians know how to say the right words to get what they want… even when they are not true.

They created a system that enhanced their own wealth and power.

It seems FAR more likely to me… that they were human rather than ‘near god like’ in that they found a way to increase their wealth and power instead of doing something that they actually thought was beneficial to anyone else. If they were actually out for the betterment of humanity… don’t you think not owning slaves… would have been a good start?

Either way… what they created was one of the worst things to have ever happened to humanity.

The Final Step

Minarchist: Explain what rights were given that the people didn’t have? Again it sounds like you are basing your opinion on today’s government. Part of liberty is the right to contract or not to so not sure where you get the founders forced anyone into anything. You can choose not to live in society And be free from all the burdens that come with it. Not everyone will agree in a society . Slaves were sold by their own people . We can not grasp property rights in today’s society. We think we own land and the house we paid off but still pay taxes. We buy a car but never own it and have no idea a certificate of title is a colorable title. But all of that is our fault. Only Bernie Sanders voters believe freedom will be handed to us. Before this government was created nothing in the world changed for 5000 years. The founders created a government for the people by the people. With as many safe guards and checks and balances as possible. They came from an oppressive king, they based this government on natural law And God. They knew how other forms of government worked. They knew about anarchy ,which you are not really promoting as much as you are promoting The founders original intent. They chose to create something new. And WE ALLOWED IT TO BECOME CORRUPT. You would still have a right to not support what you disagree with if ,IF you stand up for your rights. Otherwise people will walk all over you. People can not depend on a government to be angels . If people were angels we wouldn’t need government And if government we’re angels we wouldn’t need a constitution to confine it. The only reason this country is not a full democratic socialism (yet) is because of the constitution. I think the worst think to happen to humanity was allowing ourselves to stray so far from God and the principles that founded this government. And to back up a bit. It was not changed to life,liberty and pursuit of happiness. It is and always has been life liberty and property. Those being essential to pursue happiness.

Me: >>Explain what rights were given that the people didn’t have?

Taxation and legislation.

I cannot decide that I’m going to take your property. So, I cannot assign that right to anyone… nor can anyone else. There is no logical path to taxation outside of a contract… which makes it a contract… not taxation.

Legislation is the creation of a random rule backed by a death threat. I cannot make a random rule and attach a death threat. So I cannot assign that right to anyone… nor can anyone else. There is no logical path to gain the right to legislate outside of a contract… which makes it a contract… not legislation.

>>” It was not changed to life,liberty and pursuit of happiness.”

It isn’t ‘Life, Liberty and Property’ in the Declaration of Independence… so it either never was ‘Property’ or it was changed.

It was in the Declaration of Colonial rights… but not in the Declaration of Independence. While this isn’t a point I’ve specifically researched… I was told by a history major that the reason was due to the existence of slavery… so could not be in the Declaration for the obvious logical contradiction. I took his word for it. Not a point worth much beyond mild curiosity.

The Final Step

Minarchist: The legislation was only supposed to pass laws that followed due process when depriving liberty and laws in pursuance of the constitution. The constitution protecting the rights of the individual not the majority. Laws are meant to protect people rights . The laws you refer to are MALIUM prohibitium. Behavior controlling laws that are unconstitutional. But who says anything. … maybe one or ten people . Silence equals consent. Slavery was never LAWFUL. it was LEGAL though. Lawful being morally right. Legal being socially acceptable. Taxing I agree is theft. When the government formed it wasn’t anything close to what they tax now. But through our history We had a income tax to pay for a warrant and then the tax was repealed. We taxed imports and exports. And corporate entities. Not the people until progressives gained control. The federal reserve bank userped power from congress that congress never had the power to give away. Irs is a branch of the federal reserve. Foriegn states. The fifth amendment states that no one shall be deprived of life liberty or property without due process. And amendment nine touches on ,even though the constitution lists a few rights held by the people that is not all of their rights. Essentially We the people have unlimited rights. As long as what you choose to do does not cause injury to another’s rights then you are well within your rights to do it. We have falling far from these principles. The declaration does say pursuit of happiness. I don’t believe it is about slavery. As children in common law are the parents property. The Europeans bought African children (property of the parent to do with whatever ). It was a contract. Slavery trade as you probably know. Women were property as well . I’ve read supreme court cases on Child protective services. The parents that claimed the government stole their property (children ) won. And the ones that went along with the state calling them children lost. We are Considered U.S. citizens (federal property ). Man there’s so much corruption And fraud ,deceit. But it’s our fault for not staying on top of government when they fuck up.

Me: Ok, so your premise is that the constitution is perfect… and it’s the people… that failed to enforce it? So, from that perspective… I assume you have identified a point in time where people should have started shooting politicians for committing ‘crimes against the people’? The first related question is… exactly what point in time do you think that should have happened? Next… is that I have to assume your answer will be ‘some point in the past’… since I think we both agree that what’s happening now… is simple crime. If you agree with that point… how many politicians have you shot? If the answer is zero (going to assume… since you’re free to use a computer)… isn’t that complete hypocrisy… to assume others should have shot politicians… under much less extreme circumstances when you haven’t… under the most extreme of possible circumstances?

Minarchist: The constitution is only a document. It’s only enforced if the people enforce it. The government will never enforce it upon itself. There is no point in time that I would point out where people should shoot politicians. But they should have paid attention and stopped it from erroding in the courts or by election And if necessary by force in defense of life liberty and property. It would have been easier back when more of our rights were still in tact. Now it’s still possible I’m fighting them through the system in place until I’ve exhausted every avenue. Much like a smart man ,I don’t feel like being the lone ranger, or in the public’s eyes a crazed nut. I can not say it’s my fault it happened but it is my fault it continues.

The Final Step

Me: Wouldn’t it have been better… to not create a system that can’t be controlled? Wouldn’t it have been better to not allow some people to commit crime that you can’t defend against? Wouldn’t it have been better to build a system where you have higher quality products and services at a lower cost? Wouldn’t it have been better to build a system where you can fire those that do not represent you? Do you really think… the completely fucked up system we have is a better solution to the tiny problem of ‘social order’?

Minarchist: Basing that on today’s system ,yes. Like I said we had a system just like what you are saying. … The people let it slip away . There is no magical system that works on completely moral grounds. It is the duty of the people that form the system to maintain the system. Or you get what we have today.

Me: Even when new… the system was immoral, giving the ‘right to steal and enslave’. ‘Anarchy’ isn’t ‘one system’. It’s simply the generally recognized respect for person and property (i.e. the majority, since it will not be possible for as long as the majority are willing to use violence against the minority to strip away their rights). You could have a ‘democracy’ in a free society… you just couldn’t force anyone else to participate. Please explain to me how a free society is immoral.

Minarchist: Where is the structure? Anarchy has no structure. Everyone does what they want whether it injures or not. No laws to protect rights. Not court type systems to claim injury. A democratic system wouldn’t work, in the end the majority will always rule over the minorities, the ones that don’t want to be a part of it. I have to stop here. Because what you are wishing we had is exactly what we had. Today’s society is Not what we had. Now it’s a socialist democracy. We did have a free market. Until the progressives infiltrated The U.S.. We had more growth and freedoms than any other country. The people can reclaim their rights but it will not be handed to you. And no system or lack of systems will guarantee freedom without the people defending it. We failed at defending our rights. You want free trade free society start it. Don’t wait for it to happen. Take a founding principle , if you want something done you have to do it yourself.

The Final Step

Me: I gave you ‘this one’ already… did you not read it… or do you not understand it? Also, what would make you think that the only reason people aren’t out committing crime all day long is because there are cops? Are you a sociopath… so assume everyone is? Did you not read my article on ‘roaming gangs’ which also disproves that point? Here is the ‘form of structure’ (no doubt one type of many that would exist) that I would look for. The DRO Model:

The ‘DRO Model’ (Dispute Resolution Organization) which is a business model that provides insurance, private protection and dispute resolution services, in the free market, competing against similar or alternative providers.

Insurance could cover everything that is covered today… plus be a ‘guarantee’ to others that you will not violate person or property. So, presenting valid insurance would mean you’re ‘safe’ to deal with.

The DRO could provide protection services… on a contract basis depending on what you needed… from nothing or 911 emergency type response… to body guards or more.

They would provide insurance against any loss you suffered… and if you have had person or property violated… and they paid you… they have been damaged as a result of the violation of person or property which legitimizes their use of force to recover for associated losses from the offender.

Should you violate person or property (beyond something like an accident), your insurance provider would pay the loss… and for something like a theft, I’d expect there to be a 100% deductible (you repay the insurer for the entire loss) and I would expect you to have a serious chance of increased rates or being dropped (and if you couldn’t get any coverage, life might be difficult or impossible).

Should you have a dispute, your DRO would represent you in making a claim. Should your claim not be clear… and the DRO covering the other person disputed the claim… a third party DRO could be sought to provide a binding decision.

So, this business model can solve just about any problem one can come up with (I haven’t seen an ‘unresolvable problem’ in the many years I’ve been considering these ideas).

Minarchist: No not at all. Crime is not just physical injury. Before I go further, let me point out for the record, police do not prevent crime. They are not here to protect us. They enforce the codes rules regulations. I have no problem with having a constitutional sheriff. … what happens when you have insurance but I don’t because I didn’t want it ? There will be many disputes that would come about with anarchy. Let’s face it with no law be it natural law or man made ,I could violate your property rights and if I’m stronger and have paid security to back me up . It just doesn’t work. Sound me good. There’s always going to be greed . Most could live in peace but there is always a few that want more. Look at us now. We out number The ruling class and yet we do nothing to fix it. So to say without any constitution without any law and just an agreement between The people to live in peace and not have even worse a society as we have now? But I don’t think you are talking about true anarchy. For the most part everyone would just live life and not bother another. But like I said there will always be greed. With out some sort of structure to prevent greed from taking over (which is what government is) eventually it would turn into chaos. Doesn’t mean everyone would be killing everyone else or committing violent crimes. But most likely it would be involved

The Final Step

Me: >>what happens when you have insurance but I don’t because I didn’t want it ?

It would be a free society. No one would use force to make you buy anything. However, when property rights are respected (the definition of the voluntary society) that implies the legitimacy of the use of force to stop a violation in progress and to collect for a loss. That can be done by individuals, groups or by paid protection services.

So, I would be paid for the loss you were liable for (crime or not). The insurer having paid out to cover that loss has been financially ‘violated’ because of your actions which makes the use of force against you to collect… legitimate.

Whether they choose to pursue recourse from you depends on their perceived value in doing so (i.e. will they come out ahead for doing so).

It doesn’t matter if you have a ‘provider’ or not.

>> Let’s face it with no law be it natural law or man made

What makes you think there would be ‘no law’? That’s absurd.

When there is the ‘right to person and property’… those must be defined (what constitutes a violation, what constitutes reasonable response to a violation, what represents fair compensation for a loss, etc.).

>>I could violate your property rights and if I’m stronger and have paid security to back me up

So much absurdity in a single sentence.

So, you could try to violate me… but unless I have a ‘turn the other cheek’ mentality… you’ll probably die trying.

‘Enforcers’ today… exist ONLY because of the facade of legitimacy. When that is stripped away… very few would take a job to be openly and actively evil.

When word got out that there was an ‘evil gang’… there would be no shortage of people willing to join a posse (there’s never a shortage of people willing to kill others when they do have the facade of legitimacy). So, you and your gang would be up against 300 million.

>>There’s always going to be greed .

Which is why you can’t have a system that allows greedy people… to be evil.

>>Most could live in peace but there is always a few that want more.

Which is why you can’t have a system that allows greedy people… to be evil.

>>We out number The ruling class and yet we do nothing to fix it.

The result of propaganda, starting with 12 years of public school and absolute control of the main stream media. Having lost that stranglehold on information (the internet) it’s crumbling.

Evil cannot exist in the open… it needs that facade of legitimacy.

>>But I don’t think you are talking about true anarchy.

Did you google ‘no true Scotsman’? I’m going to guess you didn’t.

The Final Step

>> With out some sort of structure to prevent

After all of this… I don’t see how you can even type that sentence… I’m not talking about NO STRUCTURE… I’m talking about ALL STRUCTURES… simply removing the ability to force any… on anyone… i.e. to actually respect person and property.

>>But most likely it would be involved

Yes, a voluntary society is not a guarantee that crime won’t happen… it’s a guarantee that it won’t be possible on the scale it happens today. The State commits 90% of the crime. It encourages another 8% by prohibition of vice and ruining lives in the prison system.

More importantly, incentives would be correctly aligned. The average household income would be 8X as high… but only for those that cooperate. Besides losing a great deal of wealth… the risk and cost associated with crime… would make it unappealing for anyone with a healthy brain.

Minarchist: Well you are not talking about anarchy. You’ve said no government But then you described a government. No one has to abide by today’s society, are you willing to stand your ground? Because in the “free society ” with insurance and a set of rules pertaining to person and property But no one has to follow it or that would be forced compliance, so have insurance But I’m not paying you them or anyone else. Come try to kill me . Then there’s a bunch of little war like battles because this guys greed and that guys anger issues and this guys but he’s just drunk. . You think the founders didn’t think about anarchy? They came from oppression, The republic they formed is closer to anarchy than any other form of government. Amendment 9 made sure the listed rights were not the only rights we possess. Unlimited freedom. And the government today is nothing like what the founding documents dictate it should be. The people have to make sure the supreme law is followed and if it’s not ,correct it. You wouldn’t have any regulations from the federal government because that’s not their purpose. Nor from the state government. The police are contract enforcement which you said you agree with.

Me: >>Well you are not talking about anarchy.

I’ve provided my definition half a dozen times… are you really trying to pretend that you don’t know what I’m talking about? How about I define one more time for you?

‘An’ = Without

‘Archy’ = Rulers

What you keep parroting… is Statist propaganda that has from the beginning, tried to tie anarchy (i.e. we don’t need parasitic leaches) to chaos… because they are terrified that The People will realize we don’t need parasites.

>> You’ve said no government

Again with the definitions.

Government, very specifically… is the group of people that claim the right to commit crime.

What I’m talking about… is a society where no one has the right to commit crime.

It is the polar opposite.

The Final Step

>> are you willing to stand your ground?

No. Getting murdered would accomplish nothing. What will change the world… is education. That is what I do. When the USSR fell, it might have been the most hated nation in human history for its open hostility toward its own people. Still… they let it rebuild for the perception of necessity.

When The People… decide that rule by violence is no longer acceptable… it won’t be possible.

Have you ever been arrested for your ‘liberty beliefs’? My guess is no, because we do not have a vertically controlled government.

Have you ever been called insane or stupid for promoting liberty? That’s pretty much a guarantee… because we have a horizontally enforced government. It’s the people that attack you. Slave enforced rule is the only way 300 million can be controlled by under 600. When the slaves stop that enforcement… it’s over.

>> But no one has to follow it or that would be forced compliance,

It ABSOLUTELY is forced compliance. Otherwise there is no such thing as the right to person or property. The difference is first that everyone has the same rights… second that no one has the right to initiate force like The State does today.

>> have insurance But I’m not paying you them or anyone else.

If you violate someone or their property, the use of force is legitimate to recover for any associated costs. If you can’t pay from savings or aren’t willing to agree to a garnishment type of arrangement… it would be logically justified to place you in a forced labor camp… proceeds going to pay off your debt. I doubt many would end up ‘there’… but it is logically supported.

>> Then there’s a bunch of little war like battles because this guys greed and that guys anger issues and this guys but he’s just drunk.

In a free society… the best way to get rich… will be to cooperate. Anything else will leave you poor or dead.

Getting drunk beyond your capacity to control yourself… could get very, very expensive. So, there would naturally be much less of that.

>> The republic they formed is closer to anarchy than any other form of government.

That is true. But, because they gave themselves the right to commit crime for profit… they were unstoppable.

>> The people have to make sure the supreme law is followed

There is no mechanism for that. The mechanism for that… is actual respect for person and property. A free society where no one has the right to commit crime in the first place.

Minarchist: Good luck . When a group of people come together and agree on certain ways of doing things ,that is a government. It will never work . Man does not need government. But if he wished to guard his rights from all infringement he can not do it alone. To unite on common ground would be very difficult today. It will never happen. To many greedy people. The founders understood this way back then. The declaration even says governments were created by men in order to secure their rights. That is the logical action. What you are saying is no rulers but if I injured someone I’d have to comply which tells me there is some sort of ruler that enforces that. Unless you are depending on people to be honest. Most might but a system depending on most and not all will fail

The Final Step

Me: I know… you’ve invested a lot in your current opinion. To admit that it’s false would have the implication of an enormous amount of waste and would take more humility than most people have.

>>When a group of people come together and agree on certain ways of doing things ,that is a government.

Nope. I belong to a home owner’s association. It’s not a government. I can leave at any time, they have no rights that I do not have. They only have rights that I have and have assigned to them.

Your definition is objectively false as the word is commonly used.

>> It will never work.

You should refrain from conclusions that you have no evidence for… especially when they are logically false.

‘It’ is not a system. ‘It’ includes democracy, socialism, communism and constitutional republics. Anything you can suggest as a form of social order outside of violating person and property… is ‘It’. So, if ‘It’ can’t work, nothing you can propose will work either… since that proposal (absent acceptability of crime) would be included. There are also thousands of years of examples of Statelessness… including Ireland which used a system similar to the DRO model.

>> if he wished to guard his rights from all infringement he can not do it alone.

In a free society… I have no doubt MANY would ‘do it alone’. But, I’ve never suggested that to be free you need to be a hermit.

Repeatedly, I’ve suggested that in addition to ‘alone’, people could form response groups (there is an app for that already) and hire protection services.

>> To unite on common ground would be very difficult today.

A reasonable point… but everyone already thinks they believe in the right to person and property. We’re not telling them they need to start living naked and burn their first born.

Getting there will happen through education. When 300 million reject the 600 individuals… there is nothing they will be able to do about it.

>> It will never happen.

Again… not a good idea to make a statement of fact that you both have no evidence to support and is logically false on its face.

It… is guaranteed at this point. Way too many people know the truth and it’s spreading like wildfire.

>> To many greedy people.

Really? You should read this thread again before you comment again.

>> if I injured someone I’d have to comply which tells me there is some sort of ruler that enforces that.

Absolutely. But the person or group has no more rights than you do. If someone violated you, you’d have the same right to collect from them. There is no monopoly on ‘the initiation of the use of force’.

>> Most might but a system depending on most and not all will fail

Again, this is not ‘A System’. I’ve given you one example of what I would prefer. Many would find other solutions… and again… (are we up to 30 times now?) it is because some people are evil… that you can’t give some people the right to commit crime.

The Final Step

Minarchist: There is no humiliation here. I’m basing what I say off of history. It’s a big cirle here. Your private security will amount to corruption. And so will the home owners association Unless the people stand up and say hey wait you can’t do that because I can’t do that. The same goes for the constitutional republic. That’s how we lost the greatest form of government. You can change the definition of anarchy but what you are describing is not true anarchy. The police now are contract enforcement. Traffic citations are breaches of the contract. But you are saying you agree with having an insurance company use force to recover from a loss. Most likely using a police type force. That will with greed eventually become corrupt. If the people don’t stop it what happens? Prior to the legalization of theft and crime that you associated with our government, there were men that came together much like you say , they lived freely for awhile, But then dispute after dispute happened. They came together and formed a system that would protect the individual rights. The they put in place safeguards so the system could not violate those rights or userp power not delegated to it. Just as you said the government can not have more rights than the ones who created it,much like we don’t have more power than God. BUT THE PEOPLE FAILED TO ENFORCE THE SAFEGUARDS. THE GOVERNMENT KEPT TAKING POWER AND SOME SAID HEY NO STOP WAIT,BUT NEVER WENT FURTHER THANKS JUST TALK. IN THE SYSTEM YOU TALK ABOUT WHERE THERE ARE NO RULERS, NO ENFORCEABLE LAWS BECAUSE NO ONE IS BOUND BY ANYTHING, BUT THERE IS PRIVATE POLICE THAT CAN USE FORCE SO I’M REALITY YOU ARE BOUND TO OBEY OR ELSE, IN THAT SYSTEM YOU WILL STILL HAVE CORRUPTION AND PEOPLE TRYING TO CONTROL. EVEN IF WE HAD A KING RULER, IF THE PEOPLE STEPPED UP AND SAID YES YOU ARE LONG BUT YOU WILL NOT VIOLATE MY RIGHTS AND YOU BACKED IT WITH FORCE ,THE KING WOULD HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO COMPLY. OR SEND THE POLICE TO FORCE YOU, BUT YOU WANT A POLICE FORCE ,JUST A PRIVATE ONE THAT CAN MAKE ITS OWN RULES I GUESS. IF IT’S PRIVATE WHO CAN SAY WHAT THEY CAN DO ? OR WILL YOU HAVE A FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO STOP PRIVATE POLICE FROM KILLING YOU. LOOK MOST OF TODAY’S SOCIETY LIVES EVERYDAY WITHOUT CAUSEING HARM. BUT THEY ALSO WON’T FIGHT FOR THEIR RIGHTS AND BOW TO POLICE AND GOVERNMENT.

Me: So, I think you need to take a break… take some time to reflect… and maybe hit me up later. You’ve not made a point that I haven’t answered with provable facts… repeatedly. At this point… you’re just wasting my time.

Minarchist: The private police you say would be a way to secure ones rights , would use force ,that consitutes a State. You want something like the constitutional republic But not, and you want anarchy But not really anarchy because you support private police type powers and associations . I don’t know. The declaration and constitution state it very clear. But neither are valid without force by the people to put the words in those documents into action. The system you say is superior to all others sure does sound like the original constitutional republic before the people fell off.

Me: This type of thing… always takes time to ‘sink in’. It took me many months. PLEASE… take a few days to let that happen. I do have a limit on patience. You can add me as a friend if you’d like… and IM me in a few days. -b

The Final Step

Minarchist: I understand what you are getting at as I have studied the founders journal’s and other writings. Blackstones books. Angelo Saxons. And others. If you want anarchy, free from government, then there can be no private security that uses force of someone’s right to person or property is violated. Or the insurance company is financially injured.

The constitutional republic when working and enforced by the people , it protects everyone who’s willing to stand their ground when defending their rights. The supremacy clause to the constitution clearly States that any law that is in conflict with the supreme law (which is a there to secure rights) is void. The people had a right to defend that . In your system The people would also have to defend themselves But if they don’t they get corruption and governments that don’t protect but instead violate. Believe me the government you have defined as evil in a sense, is not the same government The founders formed. With both systems if the people failed to act someone or a group of people WILL take control. The constitution was meant to prevent this, but still it’s only paper and needs the actions of the people . Much like if the government you and I dislike didn’t have police fbi cia nsa ect. They wouldn’t be able to control all of us.

Me: So… I won’t say it again. Everything you are suggesting is false. If you want to continue further (and I assume that is the case… because if you thought I was wrong… you would have left a long time ago)… take some time. The truth will sink in. Don’t piss me off… I’ll just block you.

Minarchist: Block away. If that’s what you need to do. You are on my posting. You have provided no proof any part of the world has ever had true anarchy that worked…. But I know you don’t mean true anarchy. What you are describing is basically The constitution republic, people live their life’s, don’t owe any obligations, there was a strong sense of person and property rights. They realized that there has to be something in place to protect their rights so they didn’t have to just shoot people that might or might not have violated someone’s rights. Due process. They knew whole heartily that all government no matter what form is evil . They put restrictions in place that the people would have to make sure are followed. No right was given to tax the people. Legislation was a process to pass law,law being the structure laif out that provides a remedy of rights are violated, laws were not meant to control . Again today’s system is not a good basis to make a judgment that the republic is horrible. Today it’s not a republic and it is horrible. I’m still here posting because I believe you are confused.

Me: You… are on my page. If you think I’m confused… you should go away because I’ve provide the logic and evidence for every point I’ve made. If you don’t understand logic and reason… or aren’t even reading the posts… then you’re not capable of learning. If you can come up with a question that I have not provided a proven answer to, ask and I’ll answer. If not, don’t bother responding.

The Final Step

Minarchist: So you think the private security and insurance companies will not be corrupt? Your logic is to have a free society that no one is bound to participate in. With private security to force the will of others upon someone who doesn’t comply. I don’t know if you believe that won’t happen. The logical thing is to understand that with so many people your system would never work. I don’t bother anyone , but let’s say someone bothers me by violating my property , no court to take the claim, and no way to force the guy to make me whole. Oh wait there’s the private security. And insurance So now I’m free but have to pay a tax ,fee, whatever to the insurance and security people. Your logic is flawed. The attorney’s we have now did the same thing you did, making up your own definitions. Anarchy is lawlessness, no rulers. As you said you define it different. I’m sorry my friend but your idea of a free society is to close to what we had before the people let it go. Your evidence has been your word,and nothing else. And instead of being free we would be dependent on security firms and insurance companies. That’s not logical at all. Who makes the dicison to send security over to my house if You believed I violated your rights? Do they have to follow rules so they don’t violate my rights while enforcing yours? How would security know if you are telling the truth or you just don’t like me and you want security to punish me ?

Me: >> So you think the private security and insurance companies will not be corrupt?

–Asked and answered already.

Consider for a minute you’re going to run a dispute resolution service as I’ve described would be my preference. You spend your life’s savings to get it started, you work 80 hours a week to get it up to profitability… and finally have a profitable business after several years of hard work and all that money you put in.

Now, someone comes to you and offers $20,000 to murder someone. Because it is a free society… it’s not good odds that you’ll get away with it… but even if you think you can… is that a deal you take?

Because you have hundreds of competitors… even a rumor that it was you… could instantly bankrupt your business.

So no, a free market does not guarantee nirvana or utopia… it is however… as close as humans can get.

>>With private security to force the will of others upon someone who doesn’t comply.

Private security, coop groups, individuals… all have the same right to person and property. You can’t say that you respect the right to person and property… then deny any ability to defend them… or recover from losses. That would be to say up front… there is no such thing as a right to person or property.

>> The logical thing is to understand that with so many people your system would never work

I have a preference for a type of system. There would no doubt be hundreds or thousands of service providers.

What I actually believe though… is that once a transition to a free society is complete (I expect tens of millions to die in that transition)… that security and insurance companies might be completely unnecessary due alone to the alignment of incentives.

>> let’s say someone bothers me by violating my property , no court to take the claim

If you’ve insured yourself, you file a claim. If you haven’t… you could choose to pursue compensation yourself… or just ignore the loss.

The Final Step

>> So now I’m free but have to pay a tax ,fee, whatever to the insurance and security people.

Yes. That is freedom. Freedom to choose to find a service provider that you like that provides a service you value… or free to deal with that yourself. That… is what freedom is. Slavery is someone taking half your income… and dictating to you that you will have a shitty service provider… like it or not.

>> Your logic is flawed.

Always open to logic and evidence… buy saying it’s flawed… doesn’t make it so. You need to show me where or how.

>> Anarchy is lawlessness, no rulers.

The Voluntary Society (a form of anarchy) has rules. Rules being the details of the violation of person and property. Those rules will vary from provider to provider based on the values of the people paying for the service… since any provider that is outside those values… will lose market share and might go bankrupt.

>> but your idea of a free society is to close to what we had before the people let it go.

Yes, it’s very similar… the exclusive difference is not allowing some people to commit crime. We can see how that turned out.

>> instead of being free we would be dependent on security firms and insurance companies.

That’s not remotely logical. First, my preference is my preference. While I think it would work well for many… there are people that like the democratic arrangement, some people like communism, some people will not buy any services, etc. NO ONE would be dependent on any service provider. What people want and are willing to pay for… the market will provide.

If you don’t think that’s true… look at all the drug smugglers that are in prison for life… for trying to supply a market demand.

>> Who makes the dicison to send security over to my house if You believed I violated your rights?

–Asked and answered above ‘The DRO Model’

You would start with a claim to your insurance provider. They pay you… you’re done. They would have the right to pursue that loss with the offender. If that person were covered, they’d file a claim with his provider. If it was a clear cut case, they’d pay and turn to him for payment.

If it wasn’t a clear case, the two providers would find a neutral third party to resolve the dispute.

Keep in mind… if any provider ‘screws up’… they risk going out of business… so their primary motivation will be to make decisions that are fair and reasonable.

The Final Step

Minarchist: Ok ,most may respect and honor others rights and property but when a security company gets so big from everyone wanting more protection ,there is no guarantee they won’t become corrupt . Secondly, what’s to stop the biggest security firm to abuse their right to collect let’s say the security firm is hired by the insurance company , all the people with those 2 companies agree that I’m in their way or they want to buy my land but I wont sell. I have no insurance or I had insurance with the same company that’s trying to force me out. You are saying I can try to fight a security firms and or a insurance company? Or just forget it, oh well my 10 acres and house and my property rights are dispendable. ??. No court then??

How do you not allow some to commit crime? The original constitution before they added amendment 11-27, tried to lay out restrictions So rights could not be violated, unless you were accused of violating someone else’s rights or property. So what would be done different in Your society? So the dro project would decide if and when security can come collect? But no one has to be part of dro if they don’t want? The constitution lays out that if any public servants violate the supreme law or our rights they can be removed , so how will your system enforce insurance companies to compy and close shop when they screw up?

>>“That’s not remotely logical. First, my preference is my preference. While I think it would work well for many… there are people that like the democratic arrangement, some people like communism, some people will not buy any services, etc. NO ONE would be dependent on any service provider. What people want and are willing to pay for… the market will provide.”

The problem with this is, some will be more secure with more security, some may not have any not by choice but because of the cost. There is huge room for corruption in this.

The other problem with insurance providers paying out, much like today ,I see it would be very difficult to win if 2 companies we’re involved and I’m in the middle. And if they say no , they the ones who decide if my claim is valid (dro?) Could get paid off from insurance companies So the insurance company doesn’t have to pay out as much. Part of evil is greed, and it’s not going anywhere.

Don’t take my many many comments as an attack on your beliefs. I’m trying to understand Your concept. Many many brilliant minds thought and argued before coming together sum what on the constitution. And it takes the will of the people to hold on to it. Have you ever considered helping to restore something that is very close to what you want ,and it’s already on the record and formed but needs help to bring it back to life ,back to the original intent. ? It’s not anything like what we have today ,and it would be one step closer to your thinking of how it should be.

The Final Step

Me: >> when a security company gets so big from everyone wanting more protection ,there is no guarantee they won’t become corrupt

Consider for a minute… that you’re going to start your own DRO. What’s the first thing people are going to be concerned about? What’s the single most important issue you’ll need to resolve? According to just about every one of the thousands of people I’ve discussed this topic with ‘them taking over’ is the #1 concern.

So, how would you deal with that? If you can’t, you won’t even get your business started.

There are many ways though… you could for example buy a bond for ten million dollars for any person that finds weapons not on your ‘open audit’ books.

The reality is though… that offensive violence is extremely expensive… $1 million dollars per year per US combat soldier. There is no way you could be price competitive and have money to support an army.

>> what’s to stop the biggest security firm to abuse their right to collect

Reputation.

What value is it to them… if they steal your land… but lose their entire business. Again, we’re talking about a truly competitive environment. Today there are 800,000 monopoly creating regulations on the books. That’s why corporations can be shitty and get away with it.

>> How do you not allow some to commit crime?

What you don’t do… is allow a small group ‘permission’ to commit crime. People will always be physically able to commit crime… but you start by not making that ok… then you provide incentives for those that don’t and real consequences for those that do.

>> how will your system enforce insurance companies to compy and close shop when they screw up?

Reputation.

Do you remember the Chick-Fil-A ‘thing’? Was it gay marriage? I forget maybe it was abortion… anyway they happened to make a public statement and shit hit the fan. Had they not picked an issue that was fairly evenly split… they could have been out of business that day.

>> some may not have any not by choice but because of the cost.

Not realistic. Today the closest we have to a DRO is the Detroit Threat Management Center. They offer their services (today… in a shitty economy) to the poor… for free.

In a free society… the economy would not be hindered by those 800,000 monopoly creating regulations… so the average wealth would be more than 10X what it is today. The average person would be able to live the life of a multi-millionaire.

>> There is huge room for corruption in this.

The only way for corruption to exist would be for it to be perfectly hidden. If it doesn’t show up in price or quality and doesn’t show up as a violation of person or property… that corruption couldn’t be too significant. If it does show up… the business is gone.

Also, your competitors will be watching you… because they want your clients.

The Final Step

>> So the insurance company doesn’t have to pay out as much.

No doubt there would be demand for independent rating agencies that will provide those details before you decide. Absolutely some companies will try harder than others to minimize pay outs. Maybe that will be what the market wants if that translates into lower premiums. Maybe there will be more demand for ‘high pay out’ companies… that have higher premiums. Maybe there is enough demand for both.

>> Have you ever considered helping to restore something that is very close to what you want

Yup, that was my first step. Government was ‘too big’. So, the next question was… ‘well, how small can we make it?’ The ultimate result of that question (after very much arguing, head banging and much frustration) was that I was wrong.

What I’d always been told was the greatest thing in human history… might have been among the greatest evil.

It is both evil… and unnecessary.

Still, you can have for yourself any form of social order you want. You just can’t use violence to impose your system on me… the same way that I don’t intend to use violence to impose my preference (the DRO Model) on you.

Minarchist: What stops an insurance company from using the private security to force payments? Much like today, I don’t pay and they come and take me away. I think this boils down to a constitutional republic. A republic is a government where the people are sovereign. Not the government itself. Today’s system is not a republic, the government, the police seem to think we are servants. Why? Because we don’t stand up for ourselves. To many people stop standing up and shit falls apart. Whether it’s them just not caring,or to busy, or the economy is booming so a 2% tax increase on security isn’t a big deal and soon enough it’s what we have today. If enough people were willing to act upon their beliefs upon their rights, their principles we could take the country back from the government back from corporate greed back from the people themselves who support socialism and full democracy. But the people are weak from all the federal controlled schools teaching and a society that lives in fear of police. they must not believe they have rights. They must not believe they can manage without a government supervised life.

Forced DMV contracting. Forced to act in commerce with private property (automobile ) . Forced to pay tax on top of tax. Dragged into court with no injuries, just did something someone didn’t like. I would burn out my computer writing all that is wrong. But I’d rather ignore all that, defend my liberty And rights whole heartedly, And if they wish to hold me accountable for bullshit that injures their feelings but nothing else ,liberty or death. I spent over 2 1/2 years in town court for not contracting with DMV And traveling in my automobile with safe conduct. Cops tried to violate me with breaking of car window and pepper spray. I drive off after they attacked me, charges dismissed. But 2 1/2 years. Over and over saying the same thing. Refusing an attorney. Refusing any assault on my rights. Questioning everything. Close to 12 different assistant district attorney’s. One judge retired mid case. Attorneys laughed at me. People looked at me like I’m crazy. Most will not defend their rights and want the easiest least expensive way out. It’s sad. I have no tolerance for someone that works under the guise they are there to protect me and my rights while Fucking violating those very rights.

The Final Step

Me: >> What stops an insurance company from using the private security to force payments?

Contracts would be valid. The consequences for breaking a contract should be in a good contract. If they were to use violence as a contract resolution… when that’s not part of the agreed to consequences of that contract… no one would ever contract with them again.

>> A republic is a government where the people are sovereign.

Like I’ve repeatedly said… you’re free to work toward any form of social order you like. You’re just not free to impose that on others.

Personally, I’ll pick my services ‘piece meal’. I’ll hire or fire as needed or as my mood changes.

Minarchist: Not to grind the issue,but who enforces the contract breaches? Security firms? Many things I agree with you on. But in a way it sounds like the same as the police now. Police being a creation from statutes. Which is supposed to be the will of the people. Not nowadays But it’s supposed to be. Let’s say two insurance companies are fighting it out with each other , in a republic they would take it to a court. If that court ruled wrongly they could appeal to a higher court. And I’m assuming you would have something of that nature just called something different. And I’m sure that entity would have some sore of rules to follow regarding how they act when dealing with disputes.?

I look at the admirlty laws and why they have uniform commercial codes. If the countries wish to do peaceful business with other countries they all needed to be on the same page. Not saying I agree with those laws. But in order for society to function there has to be something in place law wise. Some may think this action is not violtil to another’s rights. You might get mob rule or groups of clans fighting all the time with no order. Who’s right who’s wrong. All the constitution did was lay out the form and how the government would opperate. Powers not given by the people did not exist in government. The document was written to establish what was already known ,that we are the kings and queens of ourselves. We join together to secure our rights. And let it be known by the people’s will the people formed the government only to secure liberty, freedom. Just to ask ,with the original intent of the forming of the Republic, what tax was there? Or legislation that encroached on individual rights and liberties?

Me: >> who enforces the contract breaches?

Good contracts have the consequences spelled out. You take out a mortgage and don’t pay… the bank has the right (per the contract) to foreclose and take the house.

If you used force to stop them… you’d be committing a crime and would be subject to their right to defend their property… with enough force necessary.

The Final Step

> Let’s say two insurance companies are fighting it out with each other

If you’re talking about an ‘intense negotiation’, nothing wrong with that. If either actually used force against the other… that would justify the use of force in response. That’s not how business works though.

So, imagine today… cell phone carriers trying to work out a deal to share bandwidth in an area. Today… they have all managed to work that out. In a free society… no one would be able to force either to come to an agreement… that’s part of what freedom means.

Usually cooperation benefits all involved… so it’s more likely than not an agreement could be found. If one party chooses not to cooperate… they may suffer in the market place for that decision.

>> If that court ruled wrongly they could appeal to a higher court.

What I would expect to be ‘the norm’… is that when two providers have a dispute (either with clients or between themselves) they’d have in place an agreement as to who would be the third party to make the decision. That is simple, effective and if that third party has any tendency to not make reasonable decisions… they risk losing future business.

>> If the countries wish to do peaceful business with other countries they all needed to be on the same page.

Where there are no countries… there is no need for trade deals. Trade deals are a compensation for the problem of The State.

>> what tax was there?

Article I section 8 (aka tax and spend)… and the entire government is centered around legislation (congress creates it, the supreme court interprets it and the president implements it).

We agree that it was much better in the beginning… but it was still a criminal violation of person and property.

The Final Step

Minarchist: What you are describing is what we had. Maybe minus the taxes. But the court was the third party if the two parties could not solve the dispute. And if they(judges) didn’t act according to what was laid out for them to follow they too could be removed . Although I am against tax of any kind. Being that any tax is a forced payment. How would roads and bridges be built and maintained? If you are to own property, is there some way to record the purchase and what sort of proof would one need to prove they owned said land? Who pays the people that file property titles or whatever the document may be called. ? ANd you said….

>> “If you’re talking about an ‘intense negotiation’, nothing wrong with that. If either actually used force against the other… that would justify the use of force in response. That’s not how business works though.”

If one says the other owes money and the other says no, and the other doesn’t want to have a third party decide and they can’t be forced ,what happens? …… or say same scenario but it’s over property, one has the right to defend their property, but the other says it’s theirs so they also believe they have a right to defend it. Of course if one was wrong or the other was they would be committing a crime of they used force but there’s no one to enforce it besides the other one. And then who’s to say either of them have to comply. The point of the sheriff was to do just that, make sure someone came to court to answer for an alledged offense. But if he detains someone he must follow due process so as to Not violate his liberty more than necessary. Judges were supposed to be neutral. Attorneys were not supposed to be foriegn agents. Law was not supposed to be for anything other than protecting rights of the individual. If an action ,say theft,rape,murder , a moral wrong then it’s unlawful. But this malium prohibitium crap is bull. Illegal just because.,harm or no harm doesn’t matter. That is a crock. I think we agree more than we both know. But like you said and I agree I can believe what I want so can you,neither can force their beliefs on others.

Me: >> What you are describing is what we had.

So, why do you fight so hard against… effectively ‘what you want… less the crime’?

>> How would roads and bridges be built and maintained?

This is ‘the joke’ among Voluntaryists ‘But what about the roads?’ It’s usually the first question we get. The question presupposes that roads are necessary… and that in the absence of The State… it would be completely impossible to do.

First point is that people ‘use the roads’… because they are ‘free’. If not for The State… I consider it unlikely that we’d be stuck with such antique ‘technology’.

The Final Step

Consider education: 100 years ago, we had a teacher in front of a classroom of 30 kids… with a piece of chalk and a blackboard. Today… we have a teacher in front of a classroom of 30 kids… with a white board.

Compare that to phone technology: 100 years ago, the simple land line phone was the hot new thing. Today, phones are wireless and have 10000 times the computing power required to get man to the moon.

If not for The State… we’d probably be flying everywhere.

In addition to that… The State can’t ‘do’ anything. Since State workers can’t be fired… when something needs to actually ‘be done’ they have to hire private sector workers… that can be fired for not working.

>> If you are to own property, is there some way to record the purchase and what sort of proof would one need to prove they owned said land?

Today we use the ‘county records office’ to record property transactions that are then insured by title insurance.

There is no reason that that exact same system could not simply be funded by the insurers that benefit from that service.

>> If one says the other owes money and the other says no, and the other doesn’t want to have a third party decide and they can’t be forced ,what happens?

Who knows? For some reason (any imaginable reason)… individuals or businesses go off the deep end and get violent. It will happen.

In a society where property rights are respected… the end result will no doubt be in front of some existing dispute resolution system… where a decision will be made about how the blame and responsibility will be reasonably apportioned.

The Final Step

>> the right to defend their property

That is what ‘law’ in a free society will be all about. Today there are enough laws and regulations on the books that it would take 30,000 years for one person to read them all (if they stopped making new ones today). So, it’s impossible for anyone to even be able to read them all… and no one can agree what they mean… even the Supreme Court is most often split down the middle.

In a free society, there will be so few laws that everyone that cares, would easily be able to know what constitutes a violation… and few would not understand how to ‘file a claim’.

>> I think we agree more than we both know.

Kind of what I’ve been saying from the beginning. When you drop your insistence on committing crime against me… we’ll be on the same page.

>> I can believe what I want so can you,neither can force their beliefs on others.

So, if you actually believe that… welcome to Voluntaryism.

Minarchist: I wasn’t refering to the state as the road makers. The question was more or less asking how as a whole do we pay for the roads to be maintained? We are not flying yet. So with no taxes . And no way to force one to pay. I see a private company paving And then charging a fee to use.

Me: Yup, absolutely. My assumption would be that it would end up much like cell phone providers today. You pick a provider with the price & features you like… pay ‘by the mile’, a ‘bulk miles plan’… with or without ‘roaming’…. or maybe an unlimited plan. What you can be sure of though… is that the product quality will be higher and the price lower.

Minarchist: A road costs a lot even if it’s not some union bullshit . Let’s say for ten miles of road it costs 150,000 , who pays for that? And if I don’t pay can I still use the road? And what stops people from saying screw this I’m not paying either? I have seen private companies get contracted through the county to pave neighborhoods And side streets.

Me: When the roads are privately owned… no doubt the total cost will go down… because we know for certain that when you ‘add The State’ quality goes down and cost goes up. Still, road providers will not only have to compete with other ‘road providers’… but all other alternatives (mass transit, air travel, working from home, etc.)… so competition will keep costs in check. And yes, for sure… there will be people that will think the price is too high (regardless of how affordable it actually is)… which is why the price will be kept to a reasonable range… because if a provider tries to get greedy… they might end up with less profit.

The Final Step

Minarchist: But I agree with more competition . The state is supposed to be the people and I can see the state buying equipment to pave roads and doing it themselve. Essentially pooling their money together And doing it. But as of today they take more and more and spend with no care. Just a stupid example, the signs to inform firemen the houses floor is unstable it’s about 2ftX2ft. Red with an X on it. The city said it will cost 180,000 to buy and install. 100 signs. I went to a sign making website And priced it out,hahaha the people intalling the signs must have been making tons of money because the signs didn’t cost shit. I have an issue with the electric companies. The one near me is owned by a company in England. And that’s basically a monopoly in the wires maybe another company uses them too but you could never offer that much of a discounted price because it’s still essentially set by the one leasing the power lines. Anyhow, it’s a messed up world now, I’m finding more and more like minded people ,won’t always agree but atleast we can be civil and eventually in a dispute I think we would come to an agreement. Maybe not. I don’t see the majority changing unless they are forced because they seem to love the corruption.

Yeah but who pays for it. Are they toll roads? Who pays to maintain them? And if I chose not to pay do I still get to use the road to go to the store ,or do I drive in the grass. Private roads? Public roads?

Me: Who knows exactly how it will work out. I’m not so concerned about ‘how’ a free society will work out… as long as the right to person and property are respected. I might not like how some things work out in that environment… but I do understand that there is no circumstance where greater freedom and security are possible. My guess is that the roads will be ‘sold off’ as The State collapses. I expect The State to try to ‘privatize’ things they are taxing for’… while not reducing the level of taxation… which is just a ‘new way to tax’ (retain the same level of taxation while reducing the services provided). If the roads are privatized… it follows that you would have the choice to ‘buy access’… or not. As for ‘how’ payment will work… my ‘cell phone example’… is my best guess as to how it might best work… but toll roads are absolutely possible. From my perspective… when things are ‘done right’… I don’t care exactly how the details end up.

Minarchist: Yeah,I like my liberty, and that would deprive me of free movement. And it is a tax and that’s theft.

Me: So, I have no doubt… that during… or shortly after ‘transition’… some ass hole… will try to buy the land around someone he hates… and build a road encircling his property in an effort to ‘land lock him’… by not allowing him access to ‘his road’. Could be that the first guy that tries that… might be able to make quite an ass of himself. The end result of ‘that’ though… would be that people would understand that ‘that’… is an issue that needs to be dealt with. So, after that ‘one event’… everyone on earth would understand that you need to guarantee ingress and egress from your property… and no one would buy a piece of land where being ‘land locked’ would be a problem. Additionally… when word got out that this dick head… did that… he might not be able to survive… since anyone with half a brain would understand that this guy tries to kill the people he deals with… so few if any would.

The Final Step

Minarchist: Look at all the problems now and no one does anything. Maybe a few try but not many. And that’s not what I was getting at, if it came to private roads with tolls, that’s a tax, now I have a to pay to move about and part of liberty is the right to move from place to place using public roads. Free from restrictions when conducting in a proper manner. I see one insurance company buying many roads , and if they have rights just like everyone else ,no one could force them to open their land to public use.

Me: Your mind… has been closed off… due to Statism. The issues you ‘see’… are all Statism. No doubt they could happen once… in a free society… but once it happened… people would adjust… to make sure ‘that never happened again’. Would you buy a house where you could be ‘land locked’? Would you move to a place where the cost for transportation was unreasonable? Would you do anything… that put yourself in servitude to others? Those ideas only come to mind… because of Statism. A person born into a free society… would never even think such things.

Minarchist: You could be a politician Hahaha you answered but avoided the question. What about the TAX on roads to use them. Any tax is theft. And the theory that in a free society something bad would only happen once, are the people different than today? Because tons of things are wrong multiple times over and over and the people don’t change it

Me: I didn’t answer that, because I thought you were speaking metaphorically… since it’s not a tax. It’s just a product/service that’s available in the free market that you’d be free to consume… or not. A tax is taken from you regardless of whether or not you consume the (low quality) product or service that is used as a justification for taking your money.

Minarchist: So we would all be bound to our land and could only move if we pay. That seems like a forced tax to me. Call it dues,tolls,consumer goods or whatever. Be like a toll bridge , if you want to cross using the bridge pay a fee. Can you cross next to the bridge and not pay a fee? NO, because most likely the land or water way is also private property. To me ,it seems all this was already worked out long long ago, and that’s why the founders new that true anarchy wouldn’t work, and without some sore of system there would and up being chaos. They new this so they made a new form from what existed at the time,one that guarded the individual rights, one that recognized the people individually we’re sovereign. One that was not formed to rule over us But instead protect our freedoms. A system that deals with property and liberty and tax . But it boils back down to the people allowing more and more undelegated power to be taken ,more tax,more control. They were not about taxing ,as we fought against a 3%tax on tea. But they also new that money had to come from somewhere for roads and services, that definitely got out of hand ,and the people let it. So there’s another example that the people won’t correct the problem in a free society. Because most people don’t want to be bothered .

Me: So, you’re making the argument that when born… you have the right to other people’s property?

The Final Step

Minarchist: First , you still haven’t answered the question, you are against tax, tax is theft. A toll to use a road to go to the store or whereever is a tax.
Second . The reason we have public roads is for the benefit of everyone, so that we don’t have the problem of someone Or company buying all the land and roads and denying the public access. And with that we realized that because they are public And everyone has a right to use it we need a tax to pay to maintain the roads. Gas tax. Therefore if you choose not to use the roads you don’t have to pay .

The difference , even if I don’t pay the gas tax I still have a right to walk on the public road property. If it was a private road I would be trespassing if I didn’t pay the toll

Me: First… yes, I did answer. Taxation is the involuntary taking of property. Fee for service is the polar opposite. By your definition (fee for service is a tax)… every transaction is a tax which is false. While there are very many solutions to the problems of social order… violating person and property to do so… is a crime and is not an acceptable solution. The fact that you might like something… or that you might benefit… or that many might benefit… still does not justify crime to accomplish your goal. You need to be a bit more creative and a lot less evil in your problem solving.

Minarchist: I don’t think a fee for a service is a tax. Because I don’t have to use the service. Most people use the roads and therefore would have no other choice but to pay and that is a tax. Unless you can provide everything you need from your own property you will need to travel. Much like in New York with the I-90 thruway, it’s a toll road, but I don’t have to use it, I can use public roads . Although I don’t agree with coming in and taking land for the benefit of the whole, I would agree that if jus compensation was offered and the people including the land owners agreed ,there would be no problem. Common sense would dictate that we need roads . Or be stagnant. In a different note,I would be fine with dirt roads that don’t need much maintenance reducing the need for a gas tax.

A toll road is basically the same as a gas tax to use the road . But my issue is private versus public. There couldn’t be a right to use the private road ,you could be denied. And I don’t mean denied to everyone ,maybe your neighbor hates you, everyone else can use his road into town but not you. And it’s his property So you have no right to it. Unless you enforce a law that dictates that no one can deny passage of toll is paid but then that’s forced compliance.

The Final Step

Me: We use roads… because The State controls them. They are ‘effectively free’ in that you can’t opt out… so once you’ve been forced to pay… they ‘feel free’. Additionally, that condition blocks free market competition since any alternative (flying cars?) that some might choose… means they have to ‘double pay’ (both for the roads and the alternative) making alternatives pretty much impossible to this point. Another thing to think about… is that the points you bring up are all ‘transition issues’. No doubt those (and many we haven’t thought of yet) will happen. But they will be resolved… because people would not tolerate them.

>> There couldn’t be a right to use the private road ,you could be denied.

Absolutely. However… follow that through logically. Some guy buys up 100% of a particular road system… just to screw with a guy he doesn’t like. While the reality is that a ‘mature voluntary society’ (one where transition issues have been resolved) would have protections against that (i.e. right of way built into the purchase agreement for the house). But let’s walk through that scenario. First… everyone within a hundred miles will hear about that… and odds are… few if any would agree to do business with ‘that guy’ not only because he’s an ass… but because he’s dangerous. He might turn his anger on you. Next… when the person undoubtedly needs to leave… should the road owner attempt to make a claim for trespass… if his DRO were to honor that claim (given the circumstances)… that DRO might go out of business due to the backlash from their clients. So, yes… there will be petty dickishness… but there are solutions that don’t require crime to solve.

Minarchist: So the right of passage for one property doesn’t violate my right of property. That road if right of passage is in play then no longer is private. And let’s say I’m from out of state so I don’t have property with right of passage through this section, am I denied .

If I have private property But there’s a road going through it and I can’t do what I want with that road it’s not really my road

Me: So, you’re a contractor. You bought a piece of land and built a house on it. Now you want to sell it. The potential buyer points out your concern about getting ‘land locked’. So, you go to the road owner… and pay him $1,000 to agree to a ‘right of way’ (i.e. partial ownership of his roads) that would guarantee the buyer unrestricted access at normal prices (or however it needs to be structured for the buyer to be comfortable enough to buy). As for being ‘out of state’… I think it’s reasonable to assume that people that buy roads will do so to make a profit (they would no doubt be major companies). If the investors in the company found out that you were intentionally refusing customers… the executives making that decision would probably be fired. That might be true even if they tried to raise the rates to the point where people started to use alternatives. It’s just the way that business works. There aren’t too many multi-millionaires that got that way… or could stay that way by spending their millions on unproductive assets just to screw with people. And… as mentioned above… there is also the social ostracism of being found to have done that.

Minarchist: Sounds like the corporations would have total power over the people. Much like today. As we don’t have a government, a republic But instead we have a United States corporation every town is incorporated. And everything is commerce.

The Final Step

Me: The road going through your property… would be yours. That means that you could sell a ‘right of way’ if you wanted… or deny anyone access. Being entirely on your property (and not land locking someone just to be a jerk) would mean you would not be at risk for ostracization. While there would be nothing wrong with fractionally owned businesses in a free society… they would not have the monopoly powers that mega corporations have today… nor would they have legal protections from crime that exist today. So, effectively they’re just businesses, so would be slaves to their customers.

Minarchist: And who has the right to say a business can not grow into a huge corporate entity? Who would stop them from infringing on property rights ? This might work if the majority of the people agreed but the people are the last piece of the machine and if they don’t defend their rights by not allowing businesses to become to big,by not allowing others to violate them ,inch by inch the progressive Marxists would slowly take control. Like they’re doing now

It boils down to the people. If they are willing to defend something like this or just take whatever is given to them.

My point with the roads was if I sell a right of way then the road is not mine. And if I ever chose to do something different with my land, I have a shared road . And not everyone with a road will be in business so no care will come in denying access to some. And much like police don’t mind enforcement of unlawful abuse because it doesn’t effect them,most people wouldn’t care as long as they are still able to use the road.

Me: >>And who has the right to say a business can not grow into a huge corporate entity?

No one. In reality though, once a business reaches what we’d call today ‘mid sized’, they have gained most of the benefit from the economies of scale. So, getting larger from there usually is a negative in that the farther the executive management is from the end product or service, the harder it is to maintain quality.

The Final Step

> Who would stop them from infringing on property rights?

The DRO or many of them… representing the people having their rights violated.

Keep in mind that for a business to prepare to initiate violence is very expensive AND there would be no facade of legitimacy to their actions.

So, as soon as people understand what they’re doing… they’re out of business.

>> if they don’t defend their rights by not allowing businesses to become to big

The difference between ‘that scenario’ and today… is that you’re projecting the claimed ‘legitimacy’ of The State (something that a lot of people still believe in) onto a business that is simply committing blatant crime. We’re also talking about a scenario where it will be acceptable, even expected for DROs to protect their clients.

>> inch by inch the progressive Marxists would slowly take control.

That part’s not remotely possible. First Marxists must first ‘steal the means of production’. We know this both from history and the fact that communism destroys capital… meaning they can’t start with communism and build up from there.

>> Like they’re doing now

Only possible because The State can steal… while claiming it’s moral.

>> If they are willing to defend something like this or just take whatever is given to them.

Close. What it boils down to is the general acceptance of the right to defend person and property. Once that happens, rule by violence (by anyone) will not be possible.

The Final Step

> if I sell a right of way then the road is not mine.

Not completely yours, no. My property abuts a main road. Technically, my property line goes to the middle of the road… but there is a road easement. There is also a ‘sight line easement’ since that road curves and would otherwise create a ‘blind curve’ if a large fence were installed.

>> And if I ever chose to do something different with my land, I have a shared road

I bought my property with those easements in place. I agreed voluntarily to those terms. I can sell the rights to the property I own… but I can’t ‘steal’ the rights I don’t own.

>> And not everyone with a road will be in business so no care will come in denying access to some.

Yup, and they might starve to death as people find out and choose not to deal with them.

>> And much like police don’t mind enforcement of unlawful abuse because it doesn’t effect them,most people wouldn’t care as long as they are still able to use the road.

People do, really love to hate bad businesses. If not for the monopoly protections, most major companies that exist today… would be out of business.